August 31, 2007

Kontogiannis' Plea Transcripts

by emptywheel

The redacted transcripts from the Kontogiannis plea hearings are available. The chronology surrounding the debates over sealing these proceedings suggests that Judge Burns decided there was no longer a sufficiently compelling reason to seal Kontogiannis' hearings. It was after that point when the government declared a need to continue sealing--or at least redact--the hearing transcripts.

February 21, 2007: The government presents its case to Judge Burns for sealing the plea deal. The government says it would take about 10 weeks to get to sentencing for Kontogiannis.

February 22, 2007: After reviewing relevant cases, Judge Burns decides he needs to give notice of a sealed proceeding, so the plea deal must wait for one day. See Spencer Ackerman for a description of the case Burns cites--which involves an espionage case.

February 23, 2007: After giving 20 hours of notice and an opportunity for the public to object, Burns takes Kontogiannis' plea deal.

Around March 26, 2007: Prosecutors submit a report to Burns advocating continued sealing of the proceedings.

April 24, 2007: The agents and AUSAs working with Kontogiannis on another investigation present the general outlines of their rationale to continue sealing the proceedings.

May 25, 2007: After receiving the third interim declaration on the reasons to seal Kontogiannis' hearings, Judge Burns rules that the latest declaration does not present compelling interest to continue sealing the proceedings.

June 22, 2007: In response to a hearing and an ex parte filing, Judge Burns orders the February 21, 22, and 23 transcripts to be unsealed in their entirety. He agrees to the redaction of the April 24 transcript, from page 13, line 25, to page 17, line 25.

June 25, 2007: Kontogiannis scheduled to return from overseas trip (presumably related to his cooperation).

June 29, 2007: Government and Kontogiannis appeal Burns' decision to unseal the transcripts.

Now, it's clear from the unsealed transcripts that Kontogiannis was cooperating in a terrorism investigation of some sort. What I find interesting is that Burns only accepted the first two declarations supporting a compelling interest to keep the transcripts sealed. Before Kontogiannis' planned June trip, Burns became convinced that there was no longer a compelling interest to keep the files sealed. Though in the first hearing on this, Burns states that after the grand jury expires, he would have much less incentive to keep the proceedings sealed.

Update: Here's the description of the events Kontogiannis had planned for June. I assume this event still took place--which means it took place (or Kontogiannis was out of the country) right in the middle of the time his plea deal was being unsealed.

Mr. O'Connell: Your honor, apparently there is a specific event planned for the June period. If we could perhaps have the first week in July.

The Court: July 2nd. Is that agreeable with the government?

Mr. O'Connell: Maybe not too close to the 4th of July.

The Court: How about if we move it back to the last week in May?

Mr. O'Connell: I much prefer a little bit forward, your Honor.

The Defendant: I shall return by June 25th, your Honor.

The Court: June 25th.

Also note: per the first hearing transcript, the dedicated grand jury assigned to this case expired in June. So that may well have been the precipitating factor for Burns' decision.

It's pretty clear that the other stuff Kontogiannis is cooperating on is in NY, probably EDNY. So O'Connell is working the main part of the cooperation (though he seems blind to the jist of it) in EDNY.

I am glad O'Connel is first rate, because that is quite a messy pile he is having to ride herd on. Curious that Kontogiannis still has the funds with which to pay such a lawyer (and ones like that certainly do not come cheap); you would think all such resources would have been attached in a forfeiture action any number of times. Hmmm, wonder why that is?

No need to. This is courier font--it's not proportional, so you just need to count the letters in the line above or below. Times roman is a little more difficult--but still, we were able to get Armitage out of it.

And one of the transcripts argues that Kontogiannis' businesses are bankrupt--but that that's the only means for Michael to pay his own bills, and that, if nothing else, will buy his silence on the nature of Kontogiannis' cooperation. Me, I'm not convinced.

It appears as if the families of both TK and Michael have money; BUT all that money appears dirty, or at least tainted, too. All I know is that when I had clients like this, the freaking Feds sucked every penny dry through attendant forfeiture actions, and did so immediately. But Kontogiannis is like a Gotti clone of some sort, he just keeps going and going with the fraudulent schemes, but always seems to have money for great lawyers. We had this discussion before, that is why a good high level criminal defense attorney gets a giant chunk o change up front as either a flat fee or flat fee plus; because the authorities are damn sure going to turn the spigot off. Unless, apparently, you are Kontogiannis.....

BTW - if anyone ever untangles what case Burns was talking about, that involved himself as the AUSA seeking to keep a search warrant sealed over express CA law requiring that it be made public - bc of the respect Burns had for _________, give.

It was interesting that whatever case he was talking about, which was apparently argued through the CA sup ct (which I found odd anyway since he was talking about his actions as an AUSA) was all redacted out too.